Another Bite? CAFC Allows Expansion of Arguments in Reply, PTAB Litigation Blog
Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the Board when it allowed Apple to expand its analogous art contention in its IPR reply, finding that the Board’s decision did not run afoul of the “newness” nor “responsiveness” restrictions governing what a petitioner may include in its reply. See Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Insights by Jones Day should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request permission to reprint or reuse any of our Insights, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. This Insight is not intended to create, and neither publication nor receipt of it constitutes, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.
